First, however, we will describe qualitative and program-
matic measures of the success of the course and describe
ongoing challenges.
A. Measures of success
The course is locally perceived to be a strong success
and has achieved a number of important benchmarks:
dissemination of course materials, increased enrollments,
and acceptance by faculty in the College of Education.
The course materials have been tested or adopted by sev-
eral other institutions and are currently in use at three: Cal
Poly Pomona, Santa Ana College, and Santiago Canyon
College [28].
An important measure of success in the CSU system is
enrollment, as revenues follow students. Student demand
for the course has been strong, and the course has grown
from only one 26-student section in Spring 1999 to four
sections serving approximately 100 students per semester,
until budget constraints as described below. Phys/Chem
102 has become institutionalized as one of the courses
that satisfy the lower-division requirements for a Natural
Science minor.
Our colleagues in the College of Education have re-
ceived the course enthusiastically, seeing the course peda-
gogy as the preferred way to teach science content to future
teachers. It is one of the required courses for students in the
Streamlined Teacher Education Program (STEP), an inte-
grated teacher education program that allows students to
simultaneously earn a bachelor’s degree and the prelimi-
nary teaching credential within 135 units (compared to the
usual 120 units for a bachelor’s degree plus 35 or more
units for the preliminary teaching credential). As with the
inclusion in the Natural Science minor, the STEP require-
ment bodes well for the continuing existence of the course.
The support from local sources has extended to signifi-
cant financial commitments. The CSUF department of
Chemistry and Biochemistry renovated an existing labora-
tory classroom to suit the instructional methods of Phys/
Chem 102, and this room is now dedicated exclusively to
the course. The course has received approximately $21 000
in support from a variety of intramural sources to purchase
equipment and supplies. In particular, the College of
Education allocated $10 000 from a Stuart Foundation
grant to purchase notebook computers used for data ac-
quisition in some of the experiments done in the classroom.
After the first year of Phys/Chem 102, a Peer Instructor
program was created, with initial support coming from the
Stuart grant in the College of Education. Each semester
high performing students in Phys/Chem 102 were selected
and hired to be peer instructors for the course the following
semester. These students attended class on a regular basis
as teaching assistants, interacting with students as they
worked in their collaborative groups and also helping
with administrative and logistical tasks including equip-
ment setup. In contrast to a more formal Learning Assistant
model, the training for these peer instructors was typically
limited to a weekly meeting with course faculty focusing
on course content and suggested instructional strategies
[29]. This experience has proven to be extremely beneficial
to the participating students, who improve their own under-
standing of the course material and have a chance to
practice their teaching skills. Further, these students serve
as useful role models and resources for students who are
taking the course for the first time. Often students find the
perspective of a peer who has recently learned material to
be a useful supplement to that of more experienced
instructors.
The Departments of Physics and Chemistry and
Biochemistry continued to share support for the Peer
Instructor program for two more years after the expiration
of the Stuart grant. In 2005, we secured grant funding from
the Boeing Corporation, which has totaled $47 000 over
three years. This grant funded the purchase of additional
equipment and supplies as well as the continuation of the
peer instructor program.
The peer instructor program has attracted a number of
strong students and influenced some of them to change
their career goals. For example, one student who served as
a peer instructor for several semesters graduated and is now
a full-time fifth grade teacher. She completed the Master of
Arts in Teaching Science (MAT-S) degree at CSUF in part
in order to be able to teach an evening section of the 102
course as a part-time instructor.B. Challenges
While the course has largely been successful, there have
been a number of challenges, some ongoing, that in some
cases threaten the very existence of the course. The most
significant issue is the cost of the course. Compared to the
large lecture format, the small-group collaborative peda-
gogy makes the course very labor intensive and very ex-
pensive to run. As already noted, California has entered
another cycle of budget cuts, and the cost of the course has
made it a target for cuts.
Staffing the course can be difficult. Many full-time
faculty are unwilling or unable to teach the course because
they are not comfortable with the inquiry-based pedagogy.
In addition, the joint nature of the course can be problem-
atic for potential instructors. Though the content is rela-
tively elementary, some instructors are not comfortable
outside their own discipline: chemists are not used to
teaching about electric circuits and physicists are not
used to using glassware and teaching about chemical re-
actions. In some cases, assignment of part-time faculty has
led to compromising pedagogical issues and the continuity
of student experience.
Another staffing difficulty is related to student ratings
of instruction. Some faculty in the course have found
that average scores on student evaluations are lower
than for other lower-division courses. Students are oftenINQUIRY-BASED COURSE IN PHYSICS AND... PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES.7,010106 (2011)010106-9